Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Question: do the best piano tuners actually set the strings out of tune with each other, or put them perfectly in tune? My guess is that they would put them as closely in tune as possible which would result in very slight phase shifts due to......what ever.

Good question. I have a book on piano tuning, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of deliberately detuning the unisons a bit to create a desired level of detuning/phasing. So, as you say, I suspect that they aim for perfect unisons, but never really achieve it, at least not for any appreciable length of time, due to the rigours of playing, temperature & humidity shifts etc. (note that the book covers rebuilding as well, so this aspect may be out of it's scope)

I'm curious, what exactly does this expansion board plug into? Is there some kind of controller/rack product capable of taking a selection of different boards?

If you go to the LIMEX products page and download the English flyer (you've probably already done this) you'll see both the module and the expansion board. galaksa was pretty sure they had the same piano sound. LIMEX offers a bunch of bare boards and a couple of enclosures presumably to stick them in - I'm not quite sure why (I'm all for it but it seems like strange marketing).

Originally Posted by Kawai James

Also, I note that there are several other piano voices available - do you suspect that they are the same core sample with filtering applied, or is separate wave data being used? Did you manage to calculate the approximate sample data size, based on the stretch groups, decays, and layers?

I don't have an MP3 sample of any of the other piano voices, but they are almost certainly the same sample set with possible filters / MIDI scaling applied.

Given 5 seconds on average of sampling time, 41 stretch groups, 7 layers:

I know this has been explained before and I read it but just don't get it: Why the extreme limitation of ROM size (to 250MB) when it is common to list not only HDD and flash memory in Giga Bytes, but also even RAM memory - typically 4 - 6 Giga Bytes in a standard laptop computer.

If RAM - instantly available data storage, by definition - is so plentifully, why use such paltry amounts of ROM? After all, we spend so much time just squandering the memory in our laptops. It's like giving out kerosene driven jets to do shopping and pick up the kids from school, while making space expeditions run on paraffin driven lawnmower engines.

I know this has been explained before and I read it but just don't get it: Why the extreme limitation of ROM size (to 250MB) when it is common to list not only HDD and flash memory in Giga Bytes, but also even RAM memory - typically 4 - 6 Giga Bytes in a standard laptop computer.

Yeah, I kind of get it and don't get it at the same time. This conundrum is pretty much why I started the DPBSD project in the first place.

Since price is generally the most important "option" this means manufacturers of most products have to cut corners, and I suppose DP manufacturers think ROM is a good place to do it - though I don't, and particularly not for flagships or the professional tier, where I expect a solo recording quality sample set / model / hybrid / etc.

You can't exactly compare PC hardware with embedded hardware - the PC performance/cost curve will always be ahead due to economies of scale.

Going with a larger sample set means, in order to persuade your potential customers to buy into the product concept, you have to talk about specs - I don't think many DP manufacturers are very comfortable doing this because it puts their lesser products in a bad light, and they'd rather be discussing how magical or whatever <insert inane intangible> their stuff is.

The larger ROM addressing space probably means a processor upgrade. More expensive (though not so much these days) and could strand inventory.

Consumers need DPs, they'll keep buying them regardless. All we can do is keep crabbing and hope they're listening.

I know this has been explained before and I read it but just don't get it: Why the extreme limitation of ROM size (to 250MB) when it is common to list not only HDD and flash memory in Giga Bytes, but also even RAM memory - typically 4 - 6 Giga Bytes in a standard laptop computer.

Yeah, I kind of get it and don't get it at the same time. This conundrum is pretty much why I started the DPBSD project in the first place.

Since price is generally the most important "option" this means manufacturers of most products have to cut corners, and I suppose DP manufacturers think ROM is a good place to do it - though I don't, and particularly not for flagships or the professional tier, where I expect a solo recording quality sample set / model / hybrid / etc.

You can't exactly compare PC hardware with embedded hardware - the PC performance/cost curve will always be ahead due to economies of scale.

Going with a larger sample set means, in order to persuade your potential customers to buy into the product concept, you have to talk about specs - I don't think many DP manufacturers are very comfortable doing this because it puts their lesser products in a bad light, and they'd rather be discussing how magical or whatever <insert inane intangible> their stuff is.

The larger ROM addressing space probably means a processor upgrade. More expensive (though not so much these days) and could strand inventory.

Consumers need DPs, they'll keep buying them regardless. All we can do is keep crabbing and hope they're listening.

It seems as if all of the piano companies got together a dozen years ago and agreed to stop posting specs at the same time and since then, the technology being used has not kept up with current advancements that are available and the prices have been on the rie as well. The V-Piano and Roland's SuperNatural piano sound are by far ahead techno-wise than Anything Yamaha offers however the hybrid AG series comes very close. As for the importance of this thread and what you do Dewster shall continue to be relevant and useful to all of us wanting to see the digital piano technology to finally match up to where it should be by now when we have smart-phones with more processing power, more memory, by the tenfold than what is found in any modern DP and costing far less. With the Ipad 3 becoming very popular, why so very few DP's without a voice editor that can be downloaded via an app? Granted we are at an age where technology is moving faster than we can upgrade. However in the DP world, with prices so high and product cycles lasting more than four years sometimes, it seems to be moving far too slowly and not keeping up with the best technology available that could improve the sound to even better standards.

voxpops was curious about Roland's SN vs non-SN so he sent me an MP3 of the Roland FP-4 for comparison purposes and I went ahead and did the review here. The DPBSD MP3 is of the default voice "GrandPiano1".

The FP-4 fails most tests, though it does support half-pedaling and partial damping. It isn't stretched, which is nice. But the decays are short, and the attack and loop samples are really small, so the looping is pretty obvious on the low end and fairly static sounding on the high end. It has three velocity layers that are pretty much unblended, with the transition from the lowest to the middle sounding quite abrupt. Basically not a lot to write home about in the piano sound department and fairly dated spec-wise.

Going by the phase signatures of the stretch and layer tests, it appears to share the same root samples as the current overwhelmingly predominant SN piano voice - the "Concert Grand" voice in the RD-700NX & the lone SN piano voice in virtually all other SN DP offerings. I think every DP manufacturer should consider more frequent sample updates as the same old, same old can get really old after a while.

I think it's kind of a shame that Roland decided to seriously dumb down the internal architecture of the FP-4's successor, the FP-4F. Having all those in-line effects to choose from must add some spice to the FP-4 internal sounds, and they positioned this keyboard more in the pro category. I see a damper resonance effect in the FP-4 manual, but was unable to hear or see any difference between pedal up and pedal down in the pedal resonance test.

Some observations from voxpops:

Originally Posted by voxpops

Despite its dated technology, it's still a very usable gigging tool, mainly due to the lightweight but strong chassis, comprehensive effects, precise (if very light) action, and crisp-sounding main AP and EP samples. Other patches, such as organ and strings etc., are also quite usable. The built-in speakers are useful but somewhat underpowered for use as stage monitors, and prone to distortion with bass sounds. The interface is mainly self-explanatory, but there are plenty of menu functions for the setting up of EQ, "Sound Control" (much like the more recent "Sound Focus"), MIDI functions, registrations, effects, and so on. I would not trade this model for the FP-4F, due to the lack of user-accessible effects, less acceptable EPs, and (allegedly) more sluggish action.

Figures 3 & 4. Spectral pan view of the layer test, highly compressed to bring out detail, Roland FP-4 above, RD-700NX "Concert Grand" below. It looks to me like they blended the layers in the FP-4 and are using this as stimulus for the SN decay process (whatever it is) in the NX. The FP-4 layer switches are quite audible, particularly the first.

Figure 5. Waveform view of the looping test, zoomed vertically in order to see the noise floor. Decay times are pretty short.

This has not gone unnoticed by The DPBSD Project! upper management team council and governing body federation.

This must surely mean that the level of BS out there is not diminishing. Talking of which, I wonder if the analytical techniques employed could also be applied to politicians - I'm just afraid that the catastrophic signal-to-noise ratio would mean that no meaningful information could be gathered.

"you don't need to have been a rabbit in order to become a veterinarian"

With 226 MP3 and 146 PIX downloads (and counting) the Yamaha P-155 has been the most popular of all my testing (previous reviews here and here). And no wonder, this DP has a lot going for it in terms of brand, keys, sound, features, and price. So it's great that anotherscott retested it and provided us with a v1.9 file to analyze.

I think the echoy sound of the sympathetic resonance during the half pedaling test is probably due to interaction of the single note loop period with one of the delay periods in the resonance effect. Also, I can hear the loops of the multiple notes interacting during the pedal-up portion of the pedal sympathetic resonance test, but this isn't nearly as obvious during the pedal-down portion of the test, so the effect is able to smooth this out to some degree.

Hi dewster, your retest fits very well with my experiences of the P155. It's a solid board for the price with some (slight) deficiencies in the sound, noticeable if you play with good headphones. In terms of playing, the most annoying feature for me is the extreme dynamic range, quite unnatural. In order to get into the realistic subrange you have to play very well-controlled.

Nowadays I use my P155 mostly for controlling a Nord Electro 3HP - the sounds of which I love in playing despite their own little quirks. What about a test of the most recent piano-sounds (especially the XL versions which I unfortunately can't load into my Nord)? I don't think the Bosie XL or the Bright Grand XL sounds have already been tested here.

In terms of playing, the most annoying feature for me is the extreme dynamic range, quite unnatural. In order to get into the realistic subrange you have to play very well-controlled.

Interesting, I've often wondered if / how the large dynamic range that Yamaha tends to implement might influence one's playing.

Originally Posted by maurus

What about a test of the most recent piano-sounds (especially the XL versions which I unfortunately can't load into my Nord)? I don't think the Bosie XL or the Bright Grand XL sounds have already been tested here.

At ~200 MB these are still an order of magnitude smaller than what I would consider to be the very low end of serious, professional, solo recordable sample set territory. Being roughly twice as large as the the next step down I'd hope there would be less stretching (Nord seems to love stretching). I'd certainly be happy to test a sample should someone provide one.

Some people interpret the blurb on Clavia's website - "fully mapped accross the keyboard" - as saying that the XL samples are not stretched at all...

If that's the case then probably all you get is no stretching (since the sample sets below this are ~1/3 the size and have ~3x stretching) - no room left for other improvements.

Nord is so close it makes these baby steps extra annoying. I wish they'd take the next logical leap to no looping. If they want to quit soldering Flash to their PWBs, multi-channel USB 3.0 Flash drives are currently < $1/GB.

If that's the case then probably all you get is no stretching (since the sample sets below this are ~1/3 the size and have ~3x stretching) - no room left for other improvements.

AFAIK, the only improvement Nord (or anyone) has every claimed for XL is the lack of stretching.

Originally Posted by dewster

Nord is so close it makes these baby steps extra annoying. I wish they'd take the next logical leap to no looping. If they want to quit soldering Flash to their PWBs, multi-channel USB 3.0 Flash drives are currently < $1/GB.

Even if you're correct in your implication that that technology would work within the existing Nord design architecture, it would still require all new hardware. Rather than call XL a "baby step," I think it has to be looked at through the prism of what can be effectively implemented within the constraints of their existing hardware. Remember that much of Nord's rep rests on their providing years worth of updates and support for existing models... it's one of the main reasons some people choose Nords over other brands.

I am a novice, and only start my first piano lesson next week so consider the source.

I think the onboard speakers are sufficient, but I much prefer the sound piped thru an old Yamaha receiver and Boston Acoustics bookshelf speakers. Audio out, as an addition to headphones jacks, is one feature I thought was a must when shopping.

Once I got my computer software installed, the piano connects very easily to the computer, USB is nice and one of the reasons I picked this model.

Rhythm accompaniment included is also nice and one of the lesser reasons for choosing this model over the lower priced options I was considering.

The ES6 employs Kawai's "Harmonic Imaging" technology (not the newer PHI or the latest UPHI) so I initially thought it would be most like the MP5 sample I have. I spent some time looking at phase signatures and listening to both, and they sounded similar, but there were no obvious phase matches. However, upon comparing it to the CN33 (which employs PHI) I saw a good phase match with the note attack samples, so these DPs almost certainly share the same base sample set. I previously determined that the CN33 was also a attack phase match with the Kawai CA63 (which employs UPHI).

Neither pedal nor key sympathetic resonance are present during MIDI playback (this seems to be typical of Kawai DPs) so to evaluate them bajabill manually played the tests and recorded them to the second MP3 file listed above. I definitely hear the key resonance but the pedal resonance is quite subtle, which is kind of odd because normally it's the other way around, though the strengths of these effects are individually adjustable in the menus (the MP3 was recorded using the default settings). Since this issue arises rather often I've added manual sympathetic resonance testing instructions to the dpbsd readme file.

There is almost no stretching to speak of which is nice, but the decay times are rather quick, and the short loop decay samples sound fairly bland. The velocity layers are smoothly blended, and so are neither visible in the phase views nor are they audibly switched. It passes the brief pedal partial damping and the half pedaling tests, but fails the silent replay test. And there are no pedal up/down or key up sound effects that I can hear.

It's perhaps worth pointing out that the ES6 was launched in mid-2008, and was indeed the first Kawai DP to utilise full, 88-key note piano sampling. As dewster correctly notes, the same base samples are used in the more advanced/detailed PHI and UPHI sound standards found in the CN and CA models respectively.

What is the coding that dictates the decay? Is it a limited database size or a programmed volume/time relationship? As a beginner, more time to find the next chord before the current one dies out would be nice.

... the same base samples are used in the more advanced/detailed PHI and UPHI sound standards found in the CN and CA models respectively.

Thanks for confirming that James!

Originally Posted by bajabill

What is the coding that dictates the decay? Is it a limited database size or a programmed volume/time relationship?

In a looped instrument, decay time is pretty much just a programmed volume/time thing with maybe some filtering over time as well. It's not hard to imagine that decay times are often intentionally made unnaturally fast in an attempt to somewhat conceal the unnaturally repetitive (too short) or drab (way too short and overprocessed) sound of looping. It's a double whammy.

Originally Posted by bajabill

As a beginner, more time to find the next chord before the current one dies out would be nice.

In more synth type instruments you can sometimes adjust the decay time, but in most DPs you can't. Real pianos ring on forever, DPs not so much, and the ES6 has a shorter decay than many others. Holding the pedal down most of the time might help some, but that will likely make you develop bad pedaling habits. You might try more damper and string resonance, and maybe more reverb.

Recently I came accross a review about a DP: SoundMagic Blue Grand3D on Virtual Piano Domain (the link is here).

Very interesting that on VPD, they rate it as 5 stars (at the moment of writing, the only one with 5 stars and the highest score). From the look of it, looks like that this piano is quite worthwhile for its sound and features (somebody also post a video using it on YouTube here)

I'm not sure if these two are using the same or different DP Engine; however, I'm interested to see how Blue Grand3D is reviewed by the DPBSD Project. I've tried to find some trial/demo version of the software, but my search so far returns none. Anybody has this product installed on their machine and kindly help to submit the required audio files for the review?

Mike Martin (General Manager of Marketing, Electronic Musical Instruments at Casio) kindly supplied a DPBSD MP3 of their new PX-350 at my request. The MP3 (and pix) are of the default piano voice "Grand Piano Concert" and the MIDI file was rendered directly to WAV on the PX-350 - a very handy feature to have. Those interested can also listen to the compressed layer test:

Readers may want to refer to my previous PX-330 review for comparison purposes. The PX-350 is Casio's next generation, with new textured keys, technically better sound, high-resolution MIDI output, USB recording, etc. Read more about the new Casio DPs over on this PW thread started by Kbeaumont.

So what exactly has changed in the piano sound department? Let's take a look:

The attack sample lengths for the low and mid notes are quite a bit longer and really benefit from this, though the loop sample lengths remain roughly the same. The crossfade from attack to loop is well done, and the loops sound "wobbly" rather than static, but the loops could benefit from increased length because the repeat interval is somewhat audible. The PX-350 is less stretched than the PX-330, but the stretch group transitions are still audible over most of the range.

Pedal sympathetic resonance for the PX-350 is rather subtle, but audible with the single note E6 test. I have to strain to see or hear any difference with the chord based test. Casio seems to have increased the dynamic range, and there may be more timbre variation with velocity than previously. There is a pedal down "loom of strings" sound effect, but it is at quite a low level in the test file (-60dB from peak). This may have to do with playing it via MIDI rather than with the keys & pedals.

Again, much thanks to Mike Martin & Casio for the timely sample of this new DP, and for the support of this project!

Figures 4a & 4b. Spectral phase view of the stretch test, mid notes, normalized to -1dB to increase clarity. TOP: PX-330; BOTTOM: PX-350. With 34 stretch groups, the PX-350 is somewhat less stretched than the PX-330, which has 28 stretch groups. Transitions are audible over the low and mid note ranges. Note phase "fingerprint" match between many of the notes, which indicates that both DP sample sets were derived from the same AP sampling session.

Figure 5. Spectral phase view of the layer test, highly compressed. One visible layer switch, the transition of which is not audible to me (Casio claims 4 layers). You can listen to this as a separate MP3 file (listed above).

So it's basically the same piano as before, but with more memory for longer attack phase ? Meaning if you like the sound of the previous Casio grand sample , you get a souped up version of the same sample set with the new series. If you didnt like the basic sound character of the Casio Piano's before, you should look somewhere else, since in that respect there is nothing new under the sun (right) ? Or are there also brand new sample sets being used ?